list_edges

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output structure and implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List'. It does not discuss units or ordering, but for a simple edge-listing tool the provided output details are sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and output, and the second adds actionable cross-tool guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned and how to use the result. An agent has enough information to call the tool and apply the output correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining the output fields and how the edge index should be used in subsequent fillet/chamfer operations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the part's edges'. It also details the output (index, type; lines give axis/length/midpoint), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_faces. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns and how it differs from related list operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains how to use the returned edge indices with add_fillet/add_chamfer, giving concrete downstream usage. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the resource scope and output purpose make the appropriate context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.